|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 4, 2006 19:03:30 GMT
How many tripods did it take to attack the planet? Thousands i'd say, some must have been detected. With all the surface radar we have that can dip miles below the surface at least one would be detected and dug up. Before any one says 'ooh they got stelth tech, then wed still be seeing something wrong with thousands of 100 foot chambers dug into the rock all over the planet. Underground tripods indeed. Total noncence just like the rest of the sh***y film The more one thinks about it - the more insanely stupid it gets. He just shoved that idea in so they could represent terrorist sleeper cells [ and in a vain effort to try and be different to other alien invasion films ]. Problem is - he doesn't seem to have thought out what a ridiculous idea it is.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 4, 2006 19:24:03 GMT
Should have got TIME TEAM in there. They find everything else! "So their I was, digging a great big ruddy ole in ground to see what crap I could find when I hit summit big. I thought to me self ' eh!, this ay right'. Suddenly this huge metal thing burst up outta ground, so sudden I dropped me trowl. Aliens?, could have been, but one look at Mick Astons multi coloured jumper and the buggers buggered off to where they came from. Over the years even we have become emune to Micks jumpers. No chance for them their aliens."
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 4, 2006 19:50:11 GMT
Should have got TIME TEAM in there. They find everything else! "So their I was, digging a great big ruddy ole in ground to see what crap I could find when I hit summit big. I thought to me self ' eh!, this ay right'. Suddenly this huge metal thing burst up outta ground, so sudden I dropped me trowl. Aliens?, could have been, but one look at Mick Astons multi coloured jumper and the buggers buggered off to where they came from. Over the years even we have become emune to Micks jumpers. No chance for them their aliens." LOL!
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 4, 2006 19:56:56 GMT
PMSL.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 5, 2006 3:46:08 GMT
Maybe they leave it fairly intact as a navigational landmark, like the German Luftwaffe did in W.W. II with St. Paul's Cathedral. And Spielberg's film had great suspense and wonderful tripods, despite Rusti's continual ranting on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 5, 2006 6:34:55 GMT
Maybe they leave it fairly intact as a navigational landmark, like the German Luftwaffe did W.W. II with St. Paul's Cathedral. And Spielberg's film had great suspense and wonderful tripods, despite Rusti's continual ranting on the subject. I agree with you on the 'Land mark idea' Lensman. I never thought of that before. Yes I also agree with you about the tripods. They were great but I wish we had of seen a bit more weapondary on them other than just twin heat rays.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 5, 2006 11:23:36 GMT
Maybe they leave it fairly intact as a navigational landmark, like the German Luftwaffe did W.W. II with St. Paul's Cathedral. And Spielberg's film had great suspense and wonderful tripods, despite Rusti's continual ranting on the subject. anything that is so mind numbingly crap deserves ever eternal derision. PP SS = shat. as for suspence, you must be joking! Ive seen better suspence in Ice Age 2.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 5, 2006 13:09:34 GMT
And Spielberg's film had great suspense The only suspense I encountered when watching Spielbergs WOTW was when I went to see it at the cinama and I had a dodgy hot dog and all the toilets were out of order - now thats suspense.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 6, 2006 9:44:51 GMT
[Edited 7 May 2006 to clarify I was responding to Rusti, not H.C.]as for suspence, you must be joking! Ive seen better suspence in Ice Age 2. Well I'm sorry that the print you saw had all the good, suspenseful scenes cut out of it. Or maybe, just *maybe* you already had your mind made up before you saw it, and were so busy sharpening your mental knives that you couldn't allow yourself to actually *experience* the film. So here we have a director who wanted to retell Wells' classic novel in a modern setting, for American audiences and using the current political climate of the USA, and in doing so abandoned many of the elements of Wells' novel. That director's name was, of course-- George Pal. So why are you not lambasting *his* work equally? I'll tell you why-- because you grew up with it. And that's the *only* reason. As has been pointed out, in many ways Spielberg's film is a lot closer to Wells' novel than the Pal version.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 6, 2006 10:37:58 GMT
So here we have a director who wanted to retell Wells' classic novel in a modern setting, for American audiences and using the current political climate of the USA American audiences?, I can't remember having to travel all the way to the U.S to watch this film, and as for U.S political climate and all the terrorist attacks surrounding the films story line, anyone would think that all the people killed in these terrorist attacks were just soley American citizens. Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 6, 2006 19:21:27 GMT
Well I'm sorry that the print you saw had all the good, suspenseful scenes cut out of it. Or maybe, just *maybe* you already had your mind made up before you saw it, and were so busy sharpening your mental knives that you couldn't allow yourself to actually *experience* the film. No i actually went into the movie with an open mind, it was the crap nature of the film that closed it again, BTW sarcasm doesnt suit you. It suits me ;D therin is the problem, yanks cant make a movie where its set in another country unless it has a yank lead and the idea of BOTH not happening is nigh on impossible for hollywood to comprehend. utter and complete horsesh*t, by removing the cylinders, mars, squiddy creatures, invisible rays, martians feeding, astronomers, artillerymen, battle scenes (5 in the book at least none in film) removal of the curate, narrator, thunderchild... the inclusion of the amoeba like chav family, aliens flying on ice lightning, underground tripods, i think the pal version and SS are about the same on ballsing the wells novel up... difference is the Pal version was done with a certain sence of 50's quaintness, Spielbergs version should have known better.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 6, 2006 19:39:47 GMT
Thats a little unfair on Pal as his version did have martians who came from Mars in cylinders. . . . As with Pals set in the 50s being filmed in the 50s and using then the best FX they could use (but no excuse for the lack of Tripods in that film as they could have done them) . . . . . But, Spielberg really has no excuse has he (though he did come up with a few).
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 6, 2006 19:50:35 GMT
But, Spielberg really has no excuse has he (though he did come up with a few). My fave has to be the battle scenes excuse... there were none because the film was seen by one persons view. eer what! Excuse me, in what context was the book written.. one person! And how many battle scenes were there? err 5 plus! pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 6, 2006 19:54:33 GMT
A weak one at that, even though we clearly can see that TCs charactor is slap bang in the middle of a battle scene.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 6, 2006 20:06:54 GMT
A weak one at that, even though we clearly can see that TCs charactor is slap bang in the middle of a battle scene. hardly, over a hill. dumbed down to avoid offending US audiences no doubt with troops in iraq, and elsewhere. Plus to keep the violence down to allow a lower rating.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 6, 2006 20:13:36 GMT
Well I'm sorry that the print you saw had all the good, suspenseful scenes cut out of it. Or maybe, just *maybe* you already had your mind made up before you saw it, and were so busy sharpening your mental knives that you couldn't allow yourself to actually *experience* the film. So here we have a director who wanted to retell Wells' classic novel in a modern setting, for American audiences and using the current political climate of the USA, and in doing so abandoned many of the elements of Wells' novel. That director's name was, of course-- George Pal. So why are you not lambasting *his* work equally? I'll tell you why-- because you grew up with it. And that's the *only* reason. As has been pointed out, in many ways Spielberg's film is a lot closer to Wells' novel than the Pal version. Actually I for one have lambasted Pals film before and I'm sure others on here and elsewhere have too. The big difference is Pal at least had the excuse that film technology wasn't able to do justice to Wells novel and people didn't expect so much in the 50s [ and Tom Cruise wasn't in it ]. Spielbergs film isn't any closer to the novel than Pals film. At least Pals film had cylinders landing and not the incredibly silly idea of tripods being buried underground for ages. Spielberg had no excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 8, 2006 0:33:07 GMT
No i actually went into the movie with an open mind Why yes Rusti, you proved what an open mind you had with all those rants you posted about the movies before they were ever released. H.C.: Oops, my above post was meant to follow Rusti's, not yours. You must have slipped yours in while I was composing mine.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 8, 2006 7:53:00 GMT
well if you keep talking out of your arse instead of your mouth with your self righteous crap some one is going to take you out.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 8, 2006 8:30:19 GMT
All right. I think that's enough.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 8, 2006 8:45:50 GMT
A weak one at that, even though we clearly can see that TCs charactor is slap bang in the middle of a battle scene. hardly, over a hill. dumbed down to avoid offending US audiences no doubt with troops in iraq, and elsewhere. Plus to keep the violence down to allow a lower rating. What was the rating in your area Rusti?
|
|